諸經要集 10.60

10.60

又優婆塞戒經云。佛言若人有財。見有求者。言無言拒。當知是人。已說來世貧窮薄德。如是之人名為放逸。自說無財。是義不然。何以故。一切水草人無不有。雖是國主不必能施。雖是貧窮非不能施。何以故。貧窮之人亦有食分。食已洗器棄蕩滌汁。施應食者亦得福德。若以塵[麩-夫+少]施於蟻子。亦得無量福德果報。天下極貧誰當無此塵許[麩-夫+少]耶。誰有一日不食三摶[麩-夫+少]命不全者。是故諸人。應以食半施於乞者。善男子。極貧乏人。誰有赤體無衣服者。若有衣服。豈無一線施人繫瘡。一指許財作燈炷耶。天下之人誰有貧窮當無身者。如其有身見他作福。身應往助歡喜無厭。亦名施主。亦得福德。或時有分。或有與等。或有勝者。以是因緣。我受波斯匿王食時亦呪願。王及貧窮人所得功德。等無差別。如人買香。塗香末香。散香燒香如是四香。有人觸者買者量者等施無異。而諸香不失毫釐。修施之法亦復如是。若多若少。若麁若細。若隨喜心身往佐助。若遙見聞心生歡喜。其心等故。所得果報無有差別。若無財物見他施已。心不喜信疑於福田。是名貧窮。若多財寶自在無礙。有良福田。內無信心不能奉施。亦名貧窮。是故智者自觀。餘一摶食。自食則生。施他則死。猶應施與。況復多耶。智者復觀。世間若有持戒多聞。乃至獲得阿羅漢果。猶不能遮斷飢渴等。若房舍衣服飲食臥具病藥。皆由先世不施因緣。破戒之人若樂行施。是人雖墮餓鬼畜生。常得飽滿無所乏少。雖富有天地受無量樂。猶不知足。是故我應為無上樂。而行布施。不為人天。何以故。無常故。有邊故。

Furthermore, the *Upāsakaśīla-sūtra* states: The Buddha said, 'If a person has wealth and, seeing someone seeking it, says he has nothing and refuses him, one should know that this person has already spoken of poverty and slight merit in future lives. Such a person is termed heedless. That he says he has no wealth is not correct. Why? Water and grass are things that no human lacks. Though someone is the ruler of a state, he may not necessarily be able to give; though someone is poor, he is not unable to give. Why? A poor person also has his portion of food. After eating, he washes the vessel and discards the rinse-water; if he gives it to those who should eat it, he also obtains merit. If with a dust-mote of flour he gives it to ants, he also obtains boundless fruits of merit. In all the world, who among the utterly destitute lacks a dust-mote of flour like this? Who is there that could survive a single day without eating three balls of flour? Therefore, all people should give half their food to beggars. Good sons, who among the destitute is stark naked without clothing? If one has clothing, could one not spare a single thread to give to someone to bind a wound, or material the size of a finger to make a lamp-wick? Who among the people of the world is so poor as to have no body? If one has a body and sees another performing merit, one should go in person to assist, joyfully and without weariness. He too is called a donor and also obtains merit. At times he receives a share, at times he receives an equal amount, and at times he even excels. For this reason, when I received the meal offered by King Prasenajit, I also pronounced the blessing: the merit obtained by the king and by the poor person was equal and without distinction. Just as when a person buys incense—whether paste incense, powdered incense, loose incense, or burned incense, these four kinds of incense—if one touches it, buys it, or weighs it, the gift is equal and no different, and the various incenses do not lose a single hair's breadth. The practice of cultivating giving is also like this: whether much or little, coarse or fine; whether one rejoices with sympathetic joy and goes in person to assist, or from afar sees and hears it and gives rise to joy—because their minds are equal, the fruits obtained are without distinction. If one lacks wealth and, seeing another give, one's mind does not rejoice or believe, but doubts the field of merit, this is called poverty. If one has much wealth and is free and unimpeded, and there is an excellent field of merit, but internally one lacks faithful devotion and cannot make an offering, this too is called poverty. Therefore, the wise person observes for himself: even if there remains but a single ball of food, such that eating it himself means life and giving it away means death, he should still give it—how much more so when there is plenty! The wise person further observes: in this world, even if one maintains the precepts and has vast learning, or even attains the fruit of an arhat, he still cannot ward off hunger and thirst, and the like. His lack of room, clothing, food and drink, bedding, and medicine for illness are all due to the conditions of not having given in past lives. If a person who breaks the precepts takes delight in practicing giving, though he falls among hungry ghosts or animals, he will always be full and sated, lacking nothing. Though one should possess the wealth of heaven and earth and enjoy boundless pleasure, one is still not satisfied. Therefore, I should practice giving for the sake of unsurpassable joy, and not for the sake of humans or gods. Why? Because they are impermanent, because they are limited.'